Main > Main Forum
TurboTwist Hi-Low Spinner Backspin problem. XP 64 Poll rate, Works Now!
Bender:
put the keyboard down and back away form the computer
Time for a Beer!
SavannahLion:
Not to intercede here.
--- Quote from: RandyT on March 02, 2009, 06:19:45 pm ---I opted against capping the output a while back, but I may revisit this in light of the Vista x64 situation. It still isn't as good a solution as simply fixing the OS so it does what it should. If someone moves the spinner rapidly in a game like Avalanche, and the capping kicks in, when they turn the knob back to where they started from, the position will have changed. I think it's better for the user to see that the OS is limiting proper operation and fix it, than to have them think the accuracy of the spinner is flawed.
--- End quote ---
Some sort of opt-out option? Maybe a cuttable bit of wire on the board to disable the cap. A decent hacker can wire their own switch in if they want. Or... some sort of software command to enable/disable the the cap for certain games, situations, whatever?
Just a thought. :dunno
I don't care much for Microsoft Windows or some of their um... policies. I feel Microsoft has long forgotten the meaning behind their name.
RandyT:
--- Quote from: SavannahLion on March 02, 2009, 11:32:59 pm ---Some sort of opt-out option? Maybe a cuttable bit of wire on the board to disable the cap. A decent hacker can wire their own switch in if they want. Or... some sort of software command to enable/disable the the cap for certain games, situations, whatever?
--- End quote ---
Not a bad idea. I'll consider something like that if I decide to go that route. It would only need to be all or nothing, though, as there would be no good reason to enable it, unless the OS was impossible to fix. So far, there isn't an OS that meets that description.
--- Quote from: Bender on March 02, 2009, 06:45:56 pm ---My sincerest apologies for calling you a jerk
--- End quote ---
Don't sweat it. Lisa apparently thinks that's my name, so I'm used to it.
RandyT
AndyWarne:
--- Quote from: RandyT on March 02, 2009, 06:19:45 pm ---
And the difference in firmware is not stated, so the net result in the context of the previous discussion is still the same for, I'm assuming, thousands of existing users.
--- End quote ---
No, because the previous low-res spinners did not exhibit this problem. If anyone were to have come across this issue by using a later high-res spinner on an old board we would have addressed this as a support issue (although I cant recall ever needing to). BTW the Mini-PAC had backspin designed out from the start.
AndyWarne:
--- Quote from: SavannahLion on March 02, 2009, 11:32:59 pm ---
Some sort of opt-out option? Maybe a cuttable bit of wire on the board to disable the cap. A decent hacker can wire their own switch in if they want. Or... some sort of software command to enable/disable the the cap for certain games, situations, whatever?
--- End quote ---
There would be no need to disable any protection against the counter overflowing and wrapping round. There is no downside in having this logic present all the time. If the user patches Windows to increase the poll rate, the counter will not overflow and the limit not be reached anyway because the counter is zeroed more often.
Better to use a device with a faster poll rate and/or 16 bit packets though then the question does not arise.
Think of it like this: Imagine a water tank. A tap runs into it (the spinner rotation) and someone is bucketing water out of it (the poll rate).
If the amount bucketed out is less than the amount running in, it will overflow. So you want to fit an overflow pipe in case this happens.
If you increase the rate of bucketing out (poll rate), the overflow will not happen, or if you increase the size of the bucket (the packet size) the overflow will not happen. But in these cases there would be nothing gained by capping off the overflow pipe.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version